I thought that Norton was great in TIH and imo was a better Banner than Ruffalo. That said, Ruffalo delivered a good performance in the Avengers so I don't mind the change assuming that Norton really did demand more money or was a control freak.

Bana got a pass because this was the first time someone other than Bixby was playing Banner, he did all right, but he didn't come across as Banner to me. Norton was better because visually he was like Banner brought to life. Ruffalo basically nailed the way Banner would be after all these years of dealing with it. More cynical and accepting of it.

__________________
If the person you're seeing ever asks the question "Who is Stan Lee?", promptly kick their ass to the curb.
-----------
Who the **** makes a movie and while planning it is like, "you know what this needs...is some Greg Kinnear."

Ruffalo nailed the performance. It's by far the best big screen interpretation of the Hulk to date. The biggest thing is we actually see Banner being a scientist, where he's not just trying to work on a cure for himself.

__________________"If you step out that door, you're an Avenger" - Hawkeye

Ruffalo nailed the performance. It's by far the best big screen interpretation of the Hulk to date. The biggest thing is we actually see Banner being a scientist, where he's not just trying to work on a cure for himself.

I couldn't agree more. He absolutely nailed the awkward, timid, scientist Banner. He wasn't intense, not even intimidating, which makes his relationship with monstrous counterpart so much more interesting. The stronger the contrast between Banner and the Hulk, the better the story is because when they are in conflict, the character THRIVES. I was nervous about Ruffalo at first, but I think he absolutely stole the spotlight. Best screen interpretation indeed. Norton is an overall better actor IMO, but Ruffalo was DEFINITELY a better Banner.

Ruffalo was a better Banner than Norton. To me this isn't open to debate. Maybe I'm being harsh, but I sort of think any justification of Norton's performance is done solely out of bias towards the actors for their work outside of playing Bruce Banner.

Edward Norton is better actor but Mark Ruffalo suited better for the role. I will never understand why Marvel wasted Norton's talent on a character like Bruce Banner.He could be a great villain or something.

Ruffalo was a better Banner than Norton. To me this isn't open to debate. Maybe I'm being harsh, but I sort of think any justification of Norton's performance is done solely out of bias towards the actors for their work outside of playing Bruce Banner.

In terms of Bruce Banner vs. Bruce Banner, Ruffalo wins.

This is exactly the problem. Edward Norton is a phenomenal overall actor, but his Banner just was not as good as Ruffalo's at all. The fact that we're even humoring it is kind of dumb.

Ruffalo was an extremely good Banner, he pulled off the role in a way that I don't think Ed Norton could have hoped to. Saying Ruffalo looked uninterested in the character is simply a misunderstanding of the nature of his performance. In the first film Bruce learned he was cursed with being the Hulk forever and that he had no way out, even by killing himself. He's someone who's frustrated at the world and all of it's aspects but can't die or do anything to fix it. Rather than brooding and being depressed he's simply learned to view everything as a joke.

"I'm always angry" sums it all up, he's always pissed off and frustrated with his life, but he's learned to live with it and find humor his world. Rather than being a boiling pot, he simply learns to let out his frustrations in a peaceful way, having control over his anger. However, he is always frustrated and understands the gravity of his life and can at any time let that anger out as the Hulk.

This to me is the peak Bruce's character can grow, and is part of why the Hulk isn't getting another stand alone film (Why Thor is, when I also think he's reached his peak growth and a movie about Hank Pym or Black Panther would be more desirable however, comes down to money). I liked Norton's performance and have a hard time relating it to Ruffalo's, but of the two the latter is superior in my eyes and those of the general public.

Bruce Banner can grow much further then that. Also the HULK has a a character to. For the last decade writers have been writing Hulk driven story's. Banner takes a back seat to Hulks character development. There is so much for developing a character born in rage and the development between the two personalities. Hulk was well received because we finally got to see the Hulk have character. He isn't just pure rageahol.

So, why mark Ruffalo. I thopught the same when I heard his name. Why him, exactly? But after seeing the movie twice he is the only one bringing something new to the character after Bill Bixby. His acting was very good. In a more serious movie (Hulk movie, for example) Ruffalo could be really big as Banner.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dark Raven

Yes, all the people in the 70s were offspring of Mike Brady. He left his seed around everywhere, even if they were born prior to the 70s but just lived during that era.

Ruffalo was brilliant in this movie. A very subtle, nuanced performance. He wasn't uninterested, he was intentionally playing the character as aloof and withdrawn. But there was a few moments where you could see a playful glint in his eye. He wasn't playing Banner as a depressing saddo. He was playing him as a man who had come to accept the other guy and was constantly keeping him in check throughout the entire movie.

I think Lou got smaller though as the series went on. When he was competing he was definitely huge. He was still big in the series, but started to look less impressive. He did bulk up again for the TV movies, but then his make up was awful.

Actually that shot looks like it's for the TV movies.

__________________

Quote:

Anne Hathaway: "You did not just ask me that!! What a forward young man you are!!! My goodness!!"